Will the AZA be keeping generic aoudad or will they be removed entirely?
AZA Ungulate Updates
- Thread starter Kudu21
- Start date
They will not. There are only a handful of generic auodad in the AZA, anyways. They were previously phased out in favor of purebred Caprid populations.
There are no Scimitar Oryx or Addax populations in North America.
It is NOT idea to "encourage the preservation and naturalization of introduced game animals". These animals are all extremely destructive and killing our ecosystems. Nilgai for example have absolutely devastated many areas of southern Texas and encouraging their preservation will only make things worse. If these species were all super Endangered and had no captive populations I could understand, but most of the species mentioned here aren't even threatened, and they all have strong captive populations anyway. And for you to suggest to "encourage the naturalization of introduced game animals" is completely absurd and will only cause more ecosystems to fall under threat.
While on the general level that seems very plausible, I'm curious about how that will be implemented across the board. After all, being held in fewer than 15 facilities doesn't *necessarily* make a species unsustainable if it's long-lived, held in large numbers, or both. To veer off from ungulates for a moment, bonobos are only held by 7 US zoos, but are held in large troops... and it seems odd that a system would be opted for in which an endangered, potentially sustainable, high-profile species like that would automatically be downgraded to a lower management tier. It feels like it may also *inhibit* the ability of smaller populations to grow aggressively to meet larger targets, since lower management tiers would presumably mean less intensive management and therefore less correcting of demographic/genetic issues.
All of that said, it sounds like quite a large overhaul and so perhaps there is a lot to the new system that I'm not familiar with or that hasn't been fully worked out yet... I'm just trying to wrap my head around the rationale and what the end result would look like (or should look like).
Those are valid concerns/criticisms shared by a lot of people in the industry. Bonobos, for example, will likely fall under what is being called "Consortium Management", meaning that the zoos holding the species would continue to manage them as a collective, but they, themselves, would be responsible for maintaining the population, hiring a population management specialist, making the breeding and transfer plans etc., without the official support of the AZA, itself. It is a major overhaul of the system, and it has been in the works for some time now. The draft is out now, with the new program scheduled to roll out next year. The 15 facilities and 50% of the population criteria are set in stone, though, and they said to expect a drastic drop in the number of official SSPs.
Going back to ungulates, for example, in the Antelope, Cattle, Giraffid, & Camelid TAG, the only species that will remain official SSPs are: addax, addra gazelle, common eland, common wildebeest, eastern bongo, generic giraffe, greater kudu, lowland nyala, Masai giraffe, okapi, scimitar-horned oryx, yellow-backed duiker, and possibly plains bison, with the blue duiker, bontebok, and lesser kudu sitting on the threshold. the Cervid TAG will only have the Reeve's muntjac, and the Caprid TAG will only have the Sichuan takin. The Ungulate TAG as a whole (as I imagine all the TAGs are) are now working to determine how the other species are going to be managed moving forward-- consortium management, species monitoring, phase out, etc. There is a major fear that upper management across the AZA will start dropping animals like flies just because they aren't official SSPs anymore. The Ungulate TAG is working to develop talking points and educational material to meet with upper management ahead of the roll out of the new program to get ahead of this problem. People look at the current phase outs and are upset, but most of these species (with the exception of gaur and dik-dik) are practically gone anyways. The TAG is having to double down and work hard to protect what we still have in enough numbers moving forward, especially because of the changes coming to the SSP program.
So just to clarify, stuff not listed such as Speke's and Soemmerring's Gazelles, Klipspringer, Pere David's Deer, etc. are not going away, just changing their status from SSP to 'consortium management'?
Exactly. Just because something will not be an SSP moving forward does not mean that it will not continue to be managed/it will be phased out; the program will just not be officially backed by the AZA or receive assistance from the animal management/population management services without a fee. Soemmerring's gazelles have long been managed as consortium between the San Diego facilities and St. Louis, and a lot of the smaller antelope species (klipspringer, duiker, etc.) are headed to a similar management style because it is more conducive for their breeding and management anyways. Speke's gazelles would be another good candidate for this style of management. Pere David's deer will likely continue on as a "monitored species" because while they are an SSP currently, very little is known about the genetics of the population as it stands, and they are essentially managed through a rotation of stags, anyways.
Can you please go into more detail about what a consortium program entails? It would be nice to know as some of the smaller ungulates are some of my favorites.
So what a "Consortium Program" looks like isn't entirely nailed down quite yet, but it will essentially be a limited number of dedicated facilities working together to intensively breed and manage a species. This will be entirely up to the facilities themselves to coordinate, with some assistance from the TAG, but they will not be officially backed, so they will need to work out on their own how they're going to hire a population biologist, how they're going to manage the studbook and breeding and transfer plans, etc. They are hoping, at least within the Ungulate TAG, that a standard can be made so that it isn't super confusing for zoos working with multiple consortium species.
Consortium management sounded scarier at first tbh. Now hearing about it, it may suit certain species great. The big ungulate zoos will now be able to basically run their own programs without the guidelines of the ssp, potentially including a lot of private facilities in their programs. Its essentially a devolution of power many on this site have called for in the past. Besides ungulates its impact may be much different though.
Thanks for the clarifications @Kudu21. I suppose it makes intuitive sense for species held by a smaller number of facilities to be managed differently than species that are much more widespread, but if a lot of clarification/specifics on how that different management style would work is still up in the air I can understand why a lot of people in the industry would be concerned. I suppose the short-term result of this is that TAGs might need to re-evaluate their choice of program species and individual management styles in more depth than previously, i.e. deciding whether the number of programs they manage are *truly* viable and where institutional and collective resources could be better spent.
I do think that @nczoofan made a good point when saying that ungulates are actually well-represented species-wise in US collections compared to many other taxa (although many of these species are being managed by a small number of facilities). It's also worth remembering that the US has *a lot* of ungulate programs that suffer from low genetics, lack of import opportunities, management issues, high infant mortality, etc (all of this can be seen from skimming the files linked on the TAG website) - so it's not surprising that a major overhaul and focus on sustainability would have a streamlining effect for this taxonomic group specifically.
I do think that @nczoofan made a good point when saying that ungulates are actually well-represented species-wise in US collections compared to many other taxa (although many of these species are being managed by a small number of facilities). It's also worth remembering that the US has *a lot* of ungulate programs that suffer from low genetics, lack of import opportunities, management issues, high infant mortality, etc (all of this can be seen from skimming the files linked on the TAG website) - so it's not surprising that a major overhaul and focus on sustainability would have a streamlining effect for this taxonomic group specifically.
Are the aoudad in non-aza zoos generic? They're fairly common.
Yes.
Not wanting to start an argument. It’s just philosophy. Nilgai haven’t devastated South Texas. And yes, Private Holders, in semi-wild conditions (or as effectively semi-wild as many species are in their native ranges), hold many hundreds of Scimitar Horned Oryxes and Addax (each effectively extinct in their native ranges) in Texas. Look past 100 years, look past 500 years, look back to 15,000 years ago and the landscape of South Texas supported far more species than the White-tailed Deer and Javelina that exist there today. The other species mentioned are already for the most part biologically “naturalized”, I was speaking more culturally and legally, giving them full protection as wildlife. Again it’s philosophy, I have no legislative power or magic wand to get my way, it’s just to encourage others to think outside the box...as it pertains to why Zoos are shedding ungulate diversity and why many people, aside from we happy residents of Zoo-nerdom, don’t seem to care...or notice that there are no longer exhibits of “just more Deer or Buffalo” in many zoos. Don’t be insulting, you will not convince me that my philosophy is wrong. We simply disagree...particularly on our definition of “devastated”. Also, I’m not implying that there are no biologically destructive invasive species...not even close...just that some invasive species (or introduced species) are not, on balance, in that category.
Last edited:
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
I understand you are playing devils advocate and doing a thought experiment but I couldn't disagree (respectfully) more with your point about invasive species and naturalization / protected status for these.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Don't want to go off topic but what predators would effectively regulate the population of invasive nilgai in Texas ?
Jaguars? There either aren't any left or they are currently in such low densities because of the ****ing wall (probably in the single digits) that they wouldn't even make a dent in it.
Pumas ? I suppose they are capable of taking down nilgai but then they probably already are and it doesn't seem like it has made a difference.
Wolves ? Again, as with the jaguar they are gone from the State though if reintroduced (which is unlikely and will be highly polemical) they could be very effective predators of nilgai I imagine.
Coyotes ?
Yeah... they may get an occasional calf but otherwise they are not going to be any help at all.
Black bear ? As with coyotes.
Jaguars? There either aren't any left or they are currently in such low densities because of the ****ing wall (probably in the single digits) that they wouldn't even make a dent in it.
Pumas ? I suppose they are capable of taking down nilgai but then they probably already are and it doesn't seem like it has made a difference.
Wolves ? Again, as with the jaguar they are gone from the State though if reintroduced (which is unlikely and will be highly polemical) they could be very effective predators of nilgai I imagine.
Coyotes ?
Yeah... they may get an occasional calf but otherwise they are not going to be any help at all.Black bear ? As with coyotes.
Don't want to go off topic but what predators would effectively regulate the population of invasive nilgai in Texas ?
Jaguars? There either aren't any left or they are currently in such low densities because of the ****ing wall (probably in the single digits) that they wouldn't even make a dent in it.
Pumas ? I suppose they are capable of taking down nilgai but then they probably already are and it doesn't seem like it has made a difference.
Wolves ? Again, as with the jaguar they are gone from the State though if reintroduced (which is unlikely and will be highly polemical) they could be very effective predators of nilgai I imagine.
Coyotes ?
Black bear ? As with coyotes.
Yep. Now we are on the slippery slope of Pleistocene Re-wilding via proxy! . There are no effective predators (cougars and coyotes might take calves...which can control or even depress ungulate populations, witness the Muskox on Alaska’s Arctic Slope) of adult Nilgai in Texas, although I am sure cougars take the occasional adult. But I imagine that human hunters and vehicles are the most constant predators. Although the isolated area in which they live and the size of the private parcels (some behind high fences) they inhabit probably reduce the “effectiveness” of road accidents (I know, I know) to control the numbers. By law I believe all non-native wildlife in Texas (outside of specific animals in very specific areas) are considered “livestock” and the property of the land-owner.
As of yet, I don’t believe Black Bears inhabit the South Texas plains...but over the last few decades they have spread across the Rio Grande, further north and west, in the area of Val Verde County and will likely eventually repopulate the Nilgai’s range. Once they learn to hit calves, the Black Bear might be a very effective predator of the Nilgai. Here in Alaska, where they coexist, Moose calves are a primary food source of both Black and Brown Bears in the Spring. Probably won’t be able to control Nilgai numbers completely once Bears reach their habitat. Ultimately environmental factors and urban development will limit the spread of the animal.
Last edited:
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I think that is a pretty accurate statement.
The most effective predators that would curb their spread would ironically be the very species that introduced them.
Road accidents with nilgais would probably also end up killing people too. In fact I think this has happened in India and in Europe when this species has escaped from zoos.
Not sure if urbanization or environmental factors would limit their spread as apparently in their native India they are found even on the outskirts of megacities like Delhi and in terms of their ecology they occupy lots of different habitat types and also thrive in arable land.
Last edited:
Humans. Hunting would go a long way, and no would have to regulate the numbers of hunters - who cares if the hunting is sustainable or not.Don't want to go off topic but what predators would effectively regulate the population of invasive nilgai in Texas ?
Jaguars? There either aren't any left or they are currently in such low densities because of the ****ing wall (probably in the single digits) that they wouldn't even make a dent in it.
Pumas ? I suppose they are capable of taking down nilgai but then they probably already are and it doesn't seem like it has made a difference.
Wolves ? Again, as with the jaguar they are gone from the State though if reintroduced (which is unlikely and will be highly polemical) they could be very effective predators of nilgai I imagine.
Coyotes ?
Black bear ? As with coyotes.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Yes, I agree, I think that human hunters are going to have to be the method of erradication but I wonder how difficult something like that will be with this kind of animal.